Dismissed¶¶18

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024BAIL/5406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:55618; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5406 of 2024, Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.; decided 12.8.2024 by Jaspreet Singh, J.; bail rejected; Case Crime No. 662 of 2023, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, Ayodhya; Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC; grievous head injuries, extradural hemorrhage, multiple skull fractures per CT Scan; parity with co-accused refused on account of clear role of beating.

What did the court decide?

Bail declined: considering the gravity of the injuries (multiple fractures in the skull) and the severity of the offences with which the applicant is charged, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. ¶¶11

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55618

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5406 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Rawat,Piyush Tripathi,Ram Samujh Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

The applicant is arraigned in Case Crime No.662 of 2023, under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that near Bilari Crossing the applicant being in an intoxicated state had assaulted the husband of the complainant, namely, Ghanshaym. It was also alleged that the injured received grave head injuries and he was taken to community health centre from where he was referred to the district hospital.

¶9

It is submitted that it is admitted case of the complainant that the injured as well as the applicant alongwith the other two co-accused were drinking liquor near Bilari Crossing and in the intoxicated state over some issue the scufÒe took place. It is urged that there was no intention to hit the injured rather it all transpired at the spur of the moment and moreover the applicant and the other co-accused were known to the injured and they do not even have any previous enmity, hence there was no premeditation for committing the alleged crime and in the said backdrop, the applicant is in jail since 25.12.2023 and no criminal history to his credit, hence he be granted bail. It has further been urged that the other co-

¶10

accused Ram Bahadur has been enlarged on bail. Accordingly the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is stated that from the perusal of the injury report and the CT Scan report which indicates that extradural hemorrhage with maximum depth was seen on the left front pariato occipital region and the report indicated multiple fracture and intracranial injuries which are of serious nature, hence it is clear that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. He has further urged that the statement of the eye witnesses clearly indicated that the applicant had severely beaten the injured where he sustained grievous injuries.

¶12

Attention was also drawn to the statement of the injured to indicate that on the date of the incident the applicant was standing near a betel shop and were drinking liquor and started abusing the injured. He objected to the said abuse of the applicant and at that stage the applicant alongwith his father Raj Bahadur picked up the sticks and stumps and start hitting the injured on his head with an intent to kill him.

¶13

On account of the injuries, the injured immediately fainted and it was stated that till the time he regained consciousness the aforesaid two persons were still beating the applicant and for the aforesaid incident the applicant was under treatment at Darshan Nagar Medical College.

¶14

It is also urged that there is a clear evidence against the applicant as per the statement of the injured as well as the eye witnesses and looking into the injuries sustained which are grave in nature. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶15

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶16

Apparently as the FIR reveals that the applicant alongwith the co-accused are alleged to have severely beaten the injured. There is the statement of the injured that he received grievous

¶17

injures on his head including the injury report, the C.T. Scan report and the Statement of doctor which indicate that serious injuries were caused to the injured.

¶18

Considering gravity of the injuries which have been indicated as multiple fractures in the skull. The severity of the offences with which the applicant is charged with, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The order of bail in so far as the other co-accused Raj Bahadur is concerned, is on a different premise for the reason that it is the clear role of the present applicant who has been assigned the role of beating. In such circumstances, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 ank

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ramsajivan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ramanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Colector/ District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Israr Khan and Others Vs Naib Tehsildar Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Others

Devesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Sangeeta Yadav vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.